There is no logical argument for the middle ground.

[WinterBorn]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

This only works if you know the source and origins of everything incorporeal.

Then explain how the incorporeal originated unless it existed independent of the material world.

I do not know. I am simply not making assumptions on what I do not know.

But you do make an assumption if you believe the incorporeal proceeds from the incorporeal. As that assumes the source of the corporeal existed prior to the material world because if it had not it came from the material world and originated from the material world.

I believe the did not originate from the corporeal. If you want to call my belief and assumption, so be it. That would also make your belief in a soul an assumption.

 

[ding]

Logically speaking, this isn't really true. Although I think the words "material" and "incorporeal" require careful attention if you're going to try to make deductive arguments.

Exactly. That was one of the two boundary conditions that the OP started from.

The OP is not trying to argue the validity of either boundary condition.

 

[ding]

There's also no particular logical problem (depending on definitions) with positing that the "corporeal" world is all that exists and was not created by anything else.

Which still falls under the previous boundary condition I mentioned. In this case everything that is incorporeal still proceeded from the corporeal. So this case is not a logical argument for the middle ground.

 

[ding]

My pet peeve: people who say "logical argument" when they mean something more like "rational argument" or "reasonable argument"

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

Logically speaking, this isn't really true. Although I think the words "material" and "incorporeal" require careful attention if you're going to try to make deductive arguments. But roughly speaking there's no logical problem with our "corporeal world" being the product of another, different, corporeal world (cf. the Simulation Argument). So that's one alternative. There's also no particular logical problem (depending on definitions) with positing that the "corporeal" world is all that exists and was not created by anything else. Here one would be interpreting "corporeal" to mean "physical" in the sense of "governed by laws of physics". This view corresponds roughly to modern cosmology. Typically, logical arguments against this possibility depend on assuming the Principle of Sufficient Reason, but the PSR is not a logical necessity: there may be brute facts, and the existence of the world may be one of them. And of course one of the weaknesses of various cosmological arguments for a deity is that they also have to abandon the PSR, by pleading that the deity is sui generis.

Which arguments are best abductively seems like an entirely different problem, but it won't be easy to reason about that if you artificially restrict the range of possibilities ahead of time by appealing to a false dichotomy.

So you have still not made a case for the middle ground argument.

 

[ding]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

This only works if you know the source and origins of everything incorporeal.

No. If the incorporeal did not exist before the material world was created, then the existence of the incorporeal would be a manifestation of the corporeal world.

If the incorporeal cannot be scientifically verified, then its origins are matters of belief, not fact.

Which still doesn’t make a case for the middle ground argument. All this really does is make the argument of everything proceeds from the material world.

 

[BlackFlag]

This thread is retarded

 

[WinterBorn]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

This only works if you know the source and origins of everything incorporeal.

No. If the incorporeal did not exist before the material world was created, then the existence of the incorporeal would be a manifestation of the corporeal world.

If the incorporeal cannot be scientifically verified, then its origins are matters of belief, not fact.

Which still doesn’t make a case for the middle ground argument. All this really does is make the argument of everything proceeds from the material world.

It makes no such argument. If the very existence of the incorporeal cannot be scientifically verified, then there is no scientific evidence of the origins.

 

[WinterBorn]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

This only works if you know the source and origins of everything incorporeal.

No. If the incorporeal did not exist before the material world was created, then the existence of the incorporeal would be a manifestation of the corporeal world.

If the incorporeal cannot be scientifically verified, then its origins are matters of belief, not fact.

Which still doesn’t make a case for the middle ground argument. All this really does is make the argument of everything proceeds from the material world.

Here is an argument for middle ground.

The very existence of the incorporeal relies on belief, not science. Therefore, the belief that there is no god and that the incorporeal does not originate from the corporeal is just as valid as the other two theories.

 

[ding]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

This only works if you know the source and origins of everything incorporeal.

Then explain how the incorporeal originated unless it existed independent of the material world.

I do not know. I am simply not making assumptions on what I do not know.

But you do make an assumption if you believe the incorporeal proceeds from the incorporeal. As that assumes the source of the corporeal existed prior to the material world because if it had not it came from the material world and originated from the material world.

I believe the did not originate from the corporeal. If you want to call my belief and assumption, so be it. That would also make your belief in a soul an assumption.

I have no problem with calling any of this an assumption. The question is is it a logical assumption. The reality is that any belief of the incorporeal not originating from the corporeal requires that there was at least one thing that was incorporeal that existed before space and time. Because if the incorporeal did not exist before space and time logic requires it to be a manifestation of the corporeal.

 

[WinterBorn]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

There is no logical case that can be made for the idea that the material world was created by the incorporeal.

 

[WinterBorn]

This only works if you know the source and origins of everything incorporeal.

Then explain how the incorporeal originated unless it existed independent of the material world.

I do not know. I am simply not making assumptions on what I do not know.

But you do make an assumption if you believe the incorporeal proceeds from the incorporeal. As that assumes the source of the corporeal existed prior to the material world because if it had not it came from the material world and originated from the material world.

I believe the did not originate from the corporeal. If you want to call my belief and assumption, so be it. That would also make your belief in a soul an assumption.

I have no problem with calling any of this an assumption. The question is is it a logical assumption. The reality is that any belief of the incorporeal not originating from the corporeal requires that there was at least one thing that was incorporeal that existed before space and time. Because if the incorporeal did not exist before space and time logic requires it to be a manifestation of the corporeal.

Or it manifested itself. Which is as logical as the assumption that the incorporeal existed before space and time.

 

[ding]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

There is no logical case that can be made for the idea that the material world was created by the incorporeal.

That would be the subject of another thread. This thread is not about the validity of the two boundary conditions.

If you want to have that debate I suggest we do it in the bull ring.

Now let me add that the position you just took still does not make a case for the middle ground argument.

 

[WinterBorn]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

There is no logical case that can be made for the idea that the material world was created by the incorporeal.

That would be the subject of another thread. This thread is not about the validity of the two boundary conditions.

If you want to have that debate I suggest we do it in the bull ring.

Now let me add that the position you just took still does not make a case for the middle ground argument.

Let me see if I get this. I point out that one of the two options is not logical, and you decide that should not be debated here, then you dismiss my middle ground argument, which is just as logical as one of the options you insist have no middle ground between?

lol Okey dokey

 

[ding]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

This only works if you know the source and origins of everything incorporeal.

No. If the incorporeal did not exist before the material world was created, then the existence of the incorporeal would be a manifestation of the corporeal world.

If the incorporeal cannot be scientifically verified, then its origins are matters of belief, not fact.

Which still doesn’t make a case for the middle ground argument. All this really does is make the argument of everything proceeds from the material world.

Here is an argument for middle ground.

The very existence of the incorporeal relies on belief, not science. Therefore, the belief that there is no god and that the incorporeal does not originate from the corporeal is just as valid as the other two theories.

How is that an argument for the middle ground position? Belief is a product of the corporeal. Basically that is the atheist argument that man created God. So that is still the boundary condition of all things proceed from the material world.

 

[ding]

Then explain how the incorporeal originated unless it existed independent of the material world.

I do not know. I am simply not making assumptions on what I do not know.

But you do make an assumption if you believe the incorporeal proceeds from the incorporeal. As that assumes the source of the corporeal existed prior to the material world because if it had not it came from the material world and originated from the material world.

I believe the did not originate from the corporeal. If you want to call my belief and assumption, so be it. That would also make your belief in a soul an assumption.

I have no problem with calling any of this an assumption. The question is is it a logical assumption. The reality is that any belief of the incorporeal not originating from the corporeal requires that there was at least one thing that was incorporeal that existed before space and time. Because if the incorporeal did not exist before space and time logic requires it to be a manifestation of the corporeal.

Or it manifested itself. Which is as logical as the assumption that the incorporeal existed before space and time.

From what? The material world? If the soul manifested itself it did so in the material being which came first and is still a product of the material world. So it is still an argument for the boundary condition that everything was manifested from the material world.

 

[ding]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

There is no logical case that can be made for the idea that the material world was created by the incorporeal.

That would be the subject of another thread. This thread is not about the validity of the two boundary conditions.

If you want to have that debate I suggest we do it in the bull ring.

Now let me add that the position you just took still does not make a case for the middle ground argument.

Let me see if I get this. I point out that one of the two options is not logical, and you decide that should not be debated here, then you dismiss my middle ground argument, which is just as logical as one of the options you insist have no middle ground between?

lol Okey dokey

You have to be able to explain the logic and it has to make sense. But I do sincerely appreciate the dialogue.

 

[WinterBorn]

This only works if you know the source and origins of everything incorporeal.

No. If the incorporeal did not exist before the material world was created, then the existence of the incorporeal would be a manifestation of the corporeal world.

If the incorporeal cannot be scientifically verified, then its origins are matters of belief, not fact.

Which still doesn’t make a case for the middle ground argument. All this really does is make the argument of everything proceeds from the material world.

Here is an argument for middle ground.

The very existence of the incorporeal relies on belief, not science. Therefore, the belief that there is no god and that the incorporeal does not originate from the corporeal is just as valid as the other two theories.

How is that an argument for the middle ground position? Belief is a product of the corporeal. Basically that is the atheist argument that man created God. So that is still the boundary condition of all things proceed from the material world.

Then there is only one logical argument. Because the idea that the incorporeal existed before space and time is a belief too.

 

[WinterBorn]

I do not know. I am simply not making assumptions on what I do not know.

But you do make an assumption if you believe the incorporeal proceeds from the incorporeal. As that assumes the source of the corporeal existed prior to the material world because if it had not it came from the material world and originated from the material world.

I believe the did not originate from the corporeal. If you want to call my belief and assumption, so be it. That would also make your belief in a soul an assumption.

I have no problem with calling any of this an assumption. The question is is it a logical assumption. The reality is that any belief of the incorporeal not originating from the corporeal requires that there was at least one thing that was incorporeal that existed before space and time. Because if the incorporeal did not exist before space and time logic requires it to be a manifestation of the corporeal.

Or it manifested itself. Which is as logical as the assumption that the incorporeal existed before space and time.

From what? The material world? If the soul manifested itself it did so in the material being which came first and is still a product of the material world. So it is still an argument for the boundary condition that everything was manifested from the material world.

If the soul manifested itself, and it is not corporeal, then it did so outside of the bounds of the material world.

Or are you claiming that the only way the incorporeal can not come from the corporeal is that it existed before space & time?

 

[WinterBorn]

There are only two options which exist. Either the material world was created by the incorporeal or the incorporeal was created by the material world.

There is no logical case for a middle ground.

Why? Because there is no logical argument that can explain where spirituality originated from unless you believe it is a manifestation of the material world or believe that spirit existed before the material world.

There is no logical case that can be made for the idea that the material world was created by the incorporeal.

That would be the subject of another thread. This thread is not about the validity of the two boundary conditions.

If you want to have that debate I suggest we do it in the bull ring.

Now let me add that the position you just took still does not make a case for the middle ground argument.

Let me see if I get this. I point out that one of the two options is not logical, and you decide that should not be debated here, then you dismiss my middle ground argument, which is just as logical as one of the options you insist have no middle ground between?

lol Okey dokey

You have to be able to explain the logic and it has to make sense. But I do sincerely appreciate the dialogue.

You did not explain the logic of the two options listed in the OP.

 

[ding]

No. If the incorporeal did not exist before the material world was created, then the existence of the incorporeal would be a manifestation of the corporeal world.

If the incorporeal cannot be scientifically verified, then its origins are matters of belief, not fact.

Which still doesn’t make a case for the middle ground argument. All this really does is make the argument of everything proceeds from the material world.

Here is an argument for middle ground.

The very existence of the incorporeal relies on belief, not science. Therefore, the belief that there is no god and that the incorporeal does not originate from the corporeal is just as valid as the other two theories.

How is that an argument for the middle ground position? Belief is a product of the corporeal. Basically that is the atheist argument that man created God. So that is still the boundary condition of all things proceed from the material world.

Then there is only one logical argument. Because the idea that the incorporeal existed before space and time is a belief too.

Neither can be proven through observation. They can only be inferred from indirect evidence. That doesn’t mean they are not boundary conditions though. In fact, it has pretty much been debated since the beginning of man. Basically they are philosophical arguments which rely on logic and observations of the corporeal and incorporeal of existence.